|
|
Jim Kalb's Transcendent: Can We Fill This Gap?Jim Kalb’s analysis most often finds one element lacking in modern society: he calls it the Transcendent. Basically, a principle according to which society can be organized profitably, which would form the basis for a lasting tradition, and which would allow growth while tethering everyone firmly to a cultural and memetic framework which could survive over historical time. Historical time means, in effect, hundreds and, at least theoretically, thousands of years. Candidates for this role would have to at least have the potential to be successful over such a period. [Hopefully it’s clear: we are talking about principles, and not any specific government]. The stability of such an idea, or such a group of organizing principles, stands in stark contrast to the ever-changing conceptual stylings which the Western establishment generates to decorate its failing projects with. Progress, equality, diversity- all the various guises under which different permutations of the same four or five ideas are continually reintroduced- integrationism, multiculturalism, citizenism, Verfassungspatriotismus, neoconservatism: it seems as though every ten years requires the hitherto unquestionable model of the day to be discarded. All of these models will be discarded, and some new, possibly more nightmarish forms introduced, as the project of erecting a State in opposition to ethnic imperatives reaps its only possible rewards: instability, conflict, decay, loss of public trust. The most important quality of such an organizing principle would be it’s transcendence- that is, its capacity to legitimately subordinate the will of individuals to itself, and to arbitrate between conflicting interests, creating a hierarchy of values – not one that could be self-elected by individualists, as Guessedworker said, “the self-authoring, spiritually lightweight,” – but rather a hierarchy which stands above individual impulses and whims, and whose intuitive logic allows everyone a spiritual share in it. Hence, it is rightfully felt to dictate boundaries to these interests. At the same time, such a framework, being judged by its practical fruits, would have to be flexible and allow for correction. What ultimately determines legitimacy? I’ll circumvent a hundred thousand pages of Doctoral philosophy dissertations and just say it: survival value. The slow functioning of human perception combines with the ambiguity of circumstances to induce a lag time in the realization of this, so that perceived survival value often trumps real survival value, and so we have something like Multiculturalism. But perceived survival value is constantly reevaluated in the light of changing circumstances, and adjusted to more closely approximate real survival value, and so we have something like Majority Rights. Basically, if behavior A produces results, and behavior B does not, behavior A becomes the right choice pretty quickly. Not our distaste with it, or our dislike of it, or our polemic against it, but ultimately it’s own inability to reproduce itself – it’s instability – is what is going to spell the end of Multiracialism. When all the facts are known, it’s just a poorly designed, poorly conceived system. It confers low survival value, and when this is finally clearly perceived, it will become ‘wrong’. I look at Jim Kalb’s essays, and then I look at Majority Rights; and then I look at the essays, and then I look at Majority Rights: and I ask myself: can we fill this gap? Can we suggest something, a principle of organization which is essentially important today and which will still be so 500 years from now? Something which, were it but recognized, would produce on an organizational level ever-increasing fruits, a self-reproducing, self-referencing, self-sufficient structure? I say yes: that concept is called EGI. Extrapolating the results of our actions forward in time to their effects on a concretely existing gene pool provides us with a criterion for the evaluation of human behavior that is evolutionarily stable. Ultimately, the reason why Jewish critiques subverted traditional Christian-Western morals is because they were not doggedly defended enough- this was because they were felt to have no great survival value. EGI, as opposed to ‘Christian piety’ or what have you, is essentially synonymous with survival value when discussing population groups over time. Human societies still have to learn what individual organisms have always known: if they want to survive they have to propagate their genes and reproduce themselves. Let’s try applying our transcendant principle to two particular examples: Miscegenation and Rap Music. Mrs. Piggles wants to miscegenate, because she finds it fascinating. According to EGI, as a result of her behavior, she has to be excluded from the group as a punishment. This ensures no genetic inflow, which helps to guarantee the continued integrity of the gene pool over time. The continued existence of the people or nation demands that Mrs. Piggles’ wishes be subordinated to it, inasfar as she not be allowed to commit miscegenation, or if she does, that she forfeit the priviledge of group membership. Likewise, if someone happens to speak favorably of Rap music, it is fitting that that person be marked with obloquy- and I was glad to see the furor of some commentators at my Rap articles – as someone who has imported a foreign meme. The essential thing is that foreign memes be marked, their origins constantly called to mind, and that the original response be one of hesitant distrust. That is the proper attitude with which foreign memes are to be digested, to prevent a psychological hijacking a la The Frankfurt School vs. the Eugenics movement. A cultural core with a high standard of memetic purity always has to be preserved, while eccentrics and ‘frontierists’ are allowed to experiment on the periphery. Only after a meme has been long digested and carries a guaranteed benefit can it be imported into the ‘core’: women, residing as they do in the core, should never even be allowed to read about a meme that hasn’t undergone years of testing. The near immediate popularization of foreign fads, whether it be Sudoku puzzles or American Talk-Shows in Europe, speaks volumes about the breakdown of this mechanism. And when we are asked, or attacked, or ‘critiqued’ about the why and wherefore of our policies, the answer will no longer be couched in terms of taste, or reference to an imaginary creator, but to a scientifically demonstrable, existential imperative. Posted by Potential Frolic on Saturday, March 10, 2007 at 02:44 AM in Comments:2
Posted by EGI on March 10, 2007, 12:08 PM | # And so, yet another creative genius emerges at Majority Rights. Question #1 for Potential Frolic: have you read Frank Salter’s book, “On Genetic Interests?” 3
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 10, 2007, 03:26 PM | #
You’re reducing trascendence to the theological: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=transcendent Definitions 1 and 2 work well for me.
We’re still evolving, yes. And separation is the mechanism of evolution. How else would new species emerge? 4
Posted by EGI on March 10, 2007, 04:04 PM | # “A statement like this invites the rejoinder John Ray…” Why quote someone with an agenda to justify his son’s miscegenation and to justify his own personal interests in Asian immigration? “...used to make: we’re not genetically “stable” or “evolutionarily stable” but are still evolving…” You don’t understand what “evolutionarily stable” means. Even in a completely isolated population, genetic drift and various selective pressures can change gene frequencies over time, so the population will be “evolving.” That’s a normal part of nature, unavoidable, and consistent with an evolutionarily stable state. Mass migration of aliens, miscegenation, displacement, etc., which drastically alter and/or replace a population’s gene frequencies, independent of the normal processes of drift or selection, is not consistent with an evolutionarily stable state. A people pursuing an evolutionarily stable strategy must account for drift, selection, and differential fitness outcomes. Letting themselves be displaced by aliens and/or the hybrid outcomes of alien/native matings is not part of such a strategy. “... (in the link, scroll down to where the picture of the reconstructed neolithic Italian woman’s face is).” Steve Sailer’s opinions about human anthropology are worthless. Steve Sailer is worthless. Show me the data. 5
Posted by PF on March 10, 2007, 04:33 PM | # EGI, Thanks for clearing up the confusion behind the phrase ‘evolutionarily stable’, someone had to do it. Alot of theory has to be unpacked to explain this, but basically, here is what it looks like. Something which ‘is not of this world’ is flatly non-pertinent to life on this planet- somewhere a star is imploding in a distant galaxy, but it has no consequence for us. There are a huge number of things which are ‘not of this world’ - solar radiation outside of our galaxy is of no considerable interest, for example. The brownian motion of a fleck of dust on Jupiter, is of no consequence to us. It is not of this world. But lets admit immediately where this language comes from and what it implies. ‘Not of this world’- comes from the Bible. And when Jesus says ‘not of this world’, what he means is, ‘something that is foreign to this world but yet central to the understanding and essence of it.’ So the ‘other-wordly thing’ is not something irrelevant, but is in fact the ESSENCE of relevance, it is the prism through which the relevance of all other things are to be judged, even. Basically, according to the Christian vision, life after death lasts forever, and is alone truly meaningful. This life we live here, is worthless, worth nothing, it is merely transitory, ephemeral. Consider that we have Christian Monks slandering the entire imperium of human knowledge and experience - “This life is worth nothing.” They are allowed to say that because they believe in an other-worldly something that is the whole crux of their world-view: heaven and the Kingdom of God. EGI does transcend ‘the world’, because it overrides the whims and desires of our individual lives, by placing them in the larger context of group survival over time. Look at the examples above: Hey Mrs. Piggles, hey P-Frolic, it doesnt matter if you want to miscegenate or if you want to listen to rap music: We are going to override your wishes because a manifestly more important goal demands that we do so. We are going to survive, and that is more important than your caprices. That is why it is transcendent, because it ‘transcends’ the will of individuals, in the name of a greater good. And that greater good is, in contrast to the ‘immortality of the grave’ which Christianity offers, the very real ‘immortality of the world’ which shared history, tradition, and ethnic continuity offer. This immortality means that, 500 or 1000 years after you die, there are still people on the planet who look, speak and act like you, who cherish your memory, who have your name, who view you as their progenitor. Its the only immortality that this world has to offer, IMO. 6
Posted by EGI on March 10, 2007, 05:16 PM | # “No, unfortunately I havent read Salter’s book…” I didn’t think so. Apart from the Population and Environment paper reproduced here, there are reviews of Salter’s work, both in the MR archives, as well as elsewhere. Jared Taylor reviewed Salter’s book not so long ago in “American Renaissance.” I can understand where financial difficulties may prevent an interested person from obtaining Salter’s not-inexpensive book, but still, assuming you have $30-40 to spare, I’d advise checking out Transaction Publishers to get the real thing. There has been at Majority Rights a historical tendency to invoke “EGI” as some sort of talisman in support of a wide variety of opinions and ideologies, in some cases not necessarily relevant or consistent with the actual concept, so that delving into the book may be helpful. Of course, reading Salter’s book didn’t seem to help either David B nor Peter Gray actually understand its contents, but one hopes MR participants have a higher IQ than those two individuals. 7
Posted by PF on March 10, 2007, 05:50 PM | # EGI, Your post about “creative genius” was sarcasm, wasnt it? I will read up on Salter, but could you please let me know where in the above article I have misunderstood or misused the concept, or what your implicit critique of my post exactly entails. Thanks. 8
Posted by PF on March 10, 2007, 07:19 PM | #
I guess this is the pertinent quote from Kevin MacDonald’s review of On Ethnic Interests. And it’s this section of Salter which then has to be understood, I suppose it contains a refutation of what I wrote in the above post. I will look into it further and perhaps discuss it in a further post. In the meantime, it would be great if anyone who has a clearer understanding of EGI or of Salter could explain why this will not work, or why it is wrong, I would be grateful. 9
Posted by Daniel J on March 11, 2007, 02:04 AM | # Basically, according to the Christian vision, life after death lasts forever, and is alone truly meaningful. This life we live here, is worthless, worth nothing, it is merely transitory, ephemeral. Consider that we have Christian Monks slandering the entire imperium of human knowledge and experience - “This life is worth nothing.” They are allowed to say that because they believe in an other-worldly something that is the whole crux of their world-view: heaven and the Kingdom of God. -PF I am going to have to raise the bull-shit flag high on this one… Nothing in correct (read: Reformed) biblical hermeneutics would lead one to believe that the Lord believes this life to be “worthless.” EGI does transcend ‘the world’, because it overrides the whims and desires of our individual lives, by placing them in the larger context of group survival over time. Look at the examples above: Hey Mrs. Piggles, hey P-Frolic, it doesnt matter if you want to miscegenate or if you want to listen to rap music: We are going to override your wishes because a manifestly more important goal demands that we do so. We are going to survive, and that is more important than your caprices. -PF EGI doesn’t transcend anything but the current generation, and although I believe that is noble, it certainly isn’t “transcendent” enough to move me to the altar of self-sacrifice. We do what we can for our progeny but it doesn’t proffer up a reason for a promise to become a promise. Also your definition of greater good is uninspiring and socialistic. I thought we at MR were about maximizing individual liberty. I certainly am not about to lay my life down for the abstraction that is “white society” which is worth about as much to me as black society. Only individuals matter in my opinion, and I thought we were in agreement here that white individuals tend to be the one’s that matter most and had adopted EGI as a tactic. Am I totally off the mark here? 10
Posted by Daniel J on March 11, 2007, 02:06 AM | # I forgot to mention that the last two paragraphs of this article were fantastic! 11
Posted by Guessedworker on March 11, 2007, 04:08 AM | # Daniel, The maximisation of individual liberty is the goal of left- and right-liberalism alike. The only difference is that left-liberals see the state as a (supposedly temporary) enabling mechanism. Right-liberalism reaches its apogee in the more extreme interpretations of neolibertarianism, ie anarcho-capitalism and related animals. The entire political zeitgeist is liberal, and includes those right-liberalisms commonly termed Conservative or Republican (and named correctly in Oz as Liberal). Before the will to individualism is a political issue it is an evolved behavioural trait. I happen to believe that it is gripped in an eternal search for balance with cooperativism - which, again, is an evolved trait before it is a political aim. For me, then, the question is as much if not more sociobiological than it is political: what is the natural balance of individualism and cooperativism that obtains, or should obtain, in the mind of a given people? The backwardness, noisy assertiveness and infantilism one encounters in negroidal peoples attests to a heavy predominance of evolved individualism. Among mongoloids it is the reverse, with the demand to social conformity and order being highly visible figures for their inate cooperativism. Caucasoids stand somewhere in the middle, and it is quite possibly to analyse our political history - at least three millenias of it that could be described as such - in terms of the tension between these two great inate imperatives. Within this scenario, incidentally, religious faith (which is not to say “transcendence”) operates on behalf of the cooperative principle as a tutelary power of the mind. It’s patchy though. By no means is everyone sincerely capable of it. On what MR is about ... first and foremost we are discussing “issues affecting Western societies”, as the line on your browser bar says (it was, btw, negotiated by means of a thread discussion between JR and Karlmagnus, and I think many of us felt at the time that it was a little loose - but no matter now). From that it should be clear that we generally analyse from the standpoint of the ethnic interests and survival of our European peoples. That is, we perceive this moment in history to be one of extreme peril for our collective life. The life of the individual with white skin, living in his house in an area once peopled exclusively by others like him, will go on regardless ... spiritually deracinated, atomised, powerless and unprotected for the want of a collective love. His individual liberty will quite possibly be “maximised”. His people will be dead. Those like him that are left will increasingly be Brazilianised. MR is “about” trying to identify and plot a path of return to that point of natural balance between the two principles, whereby we might extract ourselves from such a fate. 12
Posted by PF on March 11, 2007, 07:56 AM | # Daniel wrote:
To put it plainly, I believe that the idea of ‘transcendence’ is a theological remnant, and that what it represents is one idea encompassing and/or subordinating a set of lesser ideas. I only chose this word because the concept would be immediately understandable, and already its regretable, since we are finding the mystical religious aspect of this idea impossible to ‘transcend’. A frog doesn’t ‘transcend’ anything, for example, nor do any molecules I know of ‘transcend’ anything else, so I cant find an equivalent in nature. Therefore even using the word transcend or transcendent falls short of a maximum standard of conceptual clarity and parsimony: it cannot be linked back to concrete things. This is fine for those who believe in ‘The Spirit’, but problematic for materialists/Darwinists. Well, everyone knows from what camp the word first originated. We’re talking about creating a hierarchy in which human wills can be ordered according to the survival value of the group. It is not limited to the next generation, but goes forward in time as far as the mental eye can see.
Maybe, but I think the final criterion of its value will be whether this greater good is real or imaginary. Alot of inspiring ‘Greater Goods’ that can never be realized are being sold at todays cultural bazaar. Just especially for the Iraq war, a vision of a democratized middle East was cooked up as the Greater Good justifying sacrifice. 13
Posted by Retew on March 11, 2007, 10:54 AM | # I’d prefer the word “transcendent” to be reserved for spiritual matters, but taking the usage agreed here (the ability to suborn individual desires and ambitions to a common aim), it seems to me that we have such a transcendent force already and that is the environment - global warming in particular, but also the growing scarcity of oil, landfill sites for all the rubbish we create each year. These make it almost certain that barring an as yet unforeseen technological “fix” (or rather a whole set of them, granted the number of problems that have to be solved), we’re going to have to adjust to a substantially lower standard of living than we do now, including severe restrictions on our mobility. I’d be the last to say I welcome that, but it could have benefits; we could become a more oral, story-telling culture, for example, and would have to mix more with our family and neighbours rather than shut ourselves away in our well-appointed flats and houses with a TV in each bedroom etc. Local art and music could become more important too and local news and media wil grow in influence, so perhaps globalism will prove to have a natural lifespan. 14
Posted by ben tillman on March 11, 2007, 11:44 AM | # I mean, I guess it’s what religion is. If you go back to the Latin religare, it’s about binding people together. Essential reading: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901351 From Kevin MacDonald’s review: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-dswrev.html
I.e., the “transcendent”. 15
Posted by ben tillman on March 11, 2007, 11:58 AM | # Salter is sensitive to the naturalistic fallacy, devoting a great deal of space to the problems inherent in any attempt at developing a morality of ethnic interest…. Yet we must also be sensitive to the “naturalistic-fallacy fallacy”, whereby we axiomatically—and wrongly—reject instances in which “is” does in fact determine “ought”. Morality is fundamentally reciprocal, and the moral standards of others may dictate our moral standards so as to prevent the establishment of anti-self double standards. 16
Posted by Daniel J on March 11, 2007, 01:51 PM | # -PF -GW Thanks guys, once again I was not clear enough in my original post . I, myself, failed to make the distinction between individual political liberty and “collective liberty” (a horrible term, but it will suffice for now). I must say that people who hold individual liberty in low regard tend to fall, overwhelmingly, into the camp of our enemies. Caucasoids stand somewhere in the middle, and it is quite possibly to analyse our political history - at least three millenias of it that could be described as such - in terms of the tension between these two great inate imperatives. -GW I agree that we should stand somewhere in the middle, but I don’t think we are any where near that point now. We have lost so much individual liberty I believe it should be an important part of our agenda to regain some of that. It is also an attractive political maneuvering/posture. I think the final criterion of its value will be whether this greater good is real or imaginary. -PF Hear, hear! I agree what unites us must be rooted in the here and now, must be real and must inspire us to seek the ‘greater good’. (Speaking of, have we at MR defined this precisely?) I think the point of religion is for one to stand, primarily, ‘alone’ before God. The actual community of believers is invisible and therefore intangible. Plus, I wouldn’t want to alienate my non-theistic brothers. I don’t have time for a full response right now but the attitude you are both able to convey (with just a keyboard-sans emoticons) inspires me. I can’t stand when everyone gets offended. I think I have something valuable to contribute to this discussion, so, after work I will respond at some length. Regards. 17
Posted by PF on March 11, 2007, 01:55 PM | # Ben Tillman wrote: Could you clarify what the second part of this statement means? I don’t quite follow. 18
Posted by Daniel J on March 11, 2007, 02:26 PM | # I think he means that if you stick to your own moral standard whilst the standard of someone else is lax or less stringent you might endanger yourself, hence ‘anti-self double standards’. 19
Posted by ben tillman on March 11, 2007, 03:38 PM | # If everyone else is particularist, it is wrong for you to be universalist. 20
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 11, 2007, 04:58 PM | #
Nope, I was responding to your hypotethical Rayesque quote. 21
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 11, 2007, 05:12 PM | # The naturalistic fallacy fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that an is cannot be an ought, or that the accusation of naturalistic fallacy is a panacea to naturalistic arguments. The arguments in favor of EGI and an evolutionary approach to human society are usually constructed so that they play into many of the “oughts” already generally accepted. 22
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 11, 2007, 05:24 PM | #
23
Posted by Grey Wanderer on March 12, 2007, 12:31 AM | # This immortality means that, 500 or 1000 years after you die, there are still people on the planet who look, speak and act like you, who cherish your memory, who have your name, who view you as their progenitor. What’s so great about that, though? It doesn’t matter if your descendants look, speak, and act like you even 100 years in the future—you won’t be alive to enjoy it. I can see why it would be preferable to the Christian ideal for some people, since genes and historical memory are concrete realities as opposed to religious beliefs which may or may not be true, but that’s…not really a ringing endorsement on its own. Why should anyone care about perpetuating their history or culture? Why should anyone care about passing on their genes, especially in an era where contraception and abortion are readily available? I’m not trying to troll or anything, I’m just genuinely curious. I myself am a nihilist not in the Nietzchean sense of the word, but rather the more commonly held stereotype—it seems to me that life is just pointless and meaningless. So I’ve been wandering around a lot of places both IRL and online trying to see what gives meaning to people’s lives, and the concept of EGI is something I haven’t seen before, so I just wanted to get a better idea of why you folks think it’s so important. Sorry if I’m bein’ annoying :x 24
Posted by Guessedworker on March 12, 2007, 10:10 AM | # Grey Wanderer, You don’t seem to have much fight about you. Hell, our elites are taking our countries away from us now ... today. It is absolutely normal to want our countries back and our elites tried for treason. I don’t have time to agonise over what my little wee self is interested in. That’s for the atomised and the defeated. England is mine, goddamnit, and nobody who tries to take from me what I know to be mine is going to get away with it. Now, buck up your ideas and do something useful. 25
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 12, 2007, 04:41 PM | # Wanderer, Consider that an organism’s purpose is survival and self-propagation. In that context, I think it’s a good thing if nihilists (and what have you) opt out of the game. No use propagating any of that. 26
Posted by PF on March 13, 2007, 12:40 PM | # Grey Wanderer, if you are still reading this thread: If each generation thinks about the following generation, and seeks in some way to contribute to its well being, then there is a gradual accumulation of benefits accruing to each subsequent generation: life becomes better and better. Most men who do great works, whether erecting political systems, defending a territory, researching a scientific topic, do not do so for the pure pleasure of doing it. If they knew that the world was going to end in 10 years, they probably wouldnt have spent time solving the Genetic Code or deciphering ancient texts or building a coherent political philosophy- if no benefit accrues to posterity, then who cares? If we knew the world was going to end in 5 years, and that there was nothing we could do about it, many of us would just unhinge our ‘moral framework’ and live out the crazy and dangerous desires which live inside each of us, and go out with a bang. Delayed gratification is the name of the game, and the longer the wait is, the sweeter the reward, usually, or the more its enjoyment can be drawn out over time. Alot of work had to be done so that you could read blogs, rather than plow fields, like most of the ancients did, did you think all of this work was done out of pure joy in itself, or desire to be become famous? Maybe if you work at it, your descendents can do something even more fun and inspiring than reading blogs, while their cities are conquered slowly from without. This is what I chose my pseudonym from, the possibility to engineer a ‘potential frolic’ for future generations, which is what interests me. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 14, 2007, 06:49 PM | # Kalb’s got a book coming out. It’s in the final draughts stage. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 14, 2008, 06:48 PM | # Jim Kalb’s new book on liberalism is available for pre-order at Amazon: hard cover, http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Liberalism-Understanding-Administered-Inquisitorial/dp/1933859741 paperback, http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Liberalism-Understanding-Administered-Inquisitorial/dp/1933859822 The Amazon.com blurb:
29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 15, 2008, 07:43 PM | # James Kalb’s book is out: http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2742 See Amazon.com blurb in my comment just above. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 15, 2008, 07:50 PM | # It is titled The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command
and can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Liberalism-Understanding-Administered-Inquisitorial/dp/1933859822 31
Posted by silver on October 15, 2008, 10:45 PM | # Kalb participated in a lively discussion of his traditionalist ideas at 2blowhards a few years ago where he got stomped by the liberals (imho, and I was cheering for him). Traditionalism, as espoused by Kalb and Larry Impauster, is a dead end. Traditional ideas and arrangements are either supported by the facts of reality or they are not. If they are, it’s that support which makes the ideas worthy, not simply their being “traditional.” To get where you want to go, new thinking is required, not stodgy reactionary carp. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 16, 2008, 12:07 AM | #
Let the reader judge for himself whether or not Kalb “got stomped by the liberals”: here’s the interview, parts one, two, and three. I should say that since that interview I for one have moved away from blaming things on liberalism, which I now see as a miasma theory. It’s not real. Liberalism is imposed from above by the élites. The people are no more liberal now than three thousand years ago. 33
Posted by Armor on October 16, 2008, 02:51 PM | #
Zeitgeist is a miasmatic word. 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 16, 2008, 03:03 PM | # Armor is exactly, precisely, one-hundred percent right in that last comment. “We need to identify who is behind the zeitgeist!” Spoken like Louis Pasteur! We have to find the germs. The Zeitgeist is NOT changing by itself but is being directed to change by string-pullers behind the curtain. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 18, 2008, 06:43 PM | # You can read a long passage from James Kalb’s new book just out: http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1108&loc=fs This five-page excerpt is, like all Kalb’s writing, intellectually gripping. Once you start reading you can’t stop till you’re at the end of the text. I’ve moved away from “liberalism” as the cause of today’s societal ills and found myself every few paragraphs saying, “Yes, but here’s an alternative way to explain that, one simpler and more plausible.” Liberalism, it seems to me, is not coming from the people, it’s being imposed on them from the top down. Nevertheless, for those who agree “liberalism” is the root of the problem, you won’t find a better expositor of that viewpoint than Kalb. Incidentally, the book price of $28 mentioned with this book excerpt is about twice the discounted price posted at Amazon.com. 36
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 18, 2008, 06:48 PM | # Just checked: that’s more than twice the price: at Amazon.com it’s eighteen bucks in hardcover, twelve bucks for the paperback. 37
Posted by silver on October 19, 2008, 06:10 PM | #
That’s because you’re seeing race behind every implied exlcamation mark. I can appreciate what Kalb’s doing, but the problem is it doesn’t necessarily have to be there and it exposes him to gotchas, as demonstrated in that blowhards discussion. (The Jew David Fiore’s “When “tradition” goes on the defensive, it’s called “reaction”—and we know where that leads, don’t we?” [straight to sobibor!] zinger is a good example, but there were many others.)
You do the same thing: Race-replacement is coming from the top down (from jewish fear, commie fuckstickery and white naivety) not “liberalism.” Liberalism’s fine, and can even coexist with “tradition.” Multiracialism, race-replacement, they are not fine. 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 19, 2008, 08:23 PM | # I don’t understand Silver’s comment above. My position: both “liberalism” and race-replacement are being forced on the people from the top down by an alliance of élites, an alliance ring-led by the Eurosphere’s Jews. The claim that “po-mo liberalism” has a life of its own is false and a miasma theory: the people themselves are no more or less liberal now than they were when the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, the Iliad, or the Bible were written. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 19, 2008, 09:21 PM | # Race-replacement is the official policy right now and there are no words for that situation because it’s beyond unspeakable. There’s no way to characterise it, no way to qualify it. Words were never invented for it, so one stands mute before it. To look squarely at it takes courage. Cowards like Silver, therefore, can’t look at it. Instead of admitting they can’t, admitting they haven’t the guts and so turn their faces away, averting their gaze, they pretend there’s nothing to look at, pretend there’s nothing there, and proceed to make fun of those who can and do look at it, look at it right in the face. Those strong enough can look at it but still can’t name it: words fail. 40
Posted by silver on October 22, 2008, 05:33 AM | #
I’ll be blunt: some people really should just ... all sorts of expletives forming on my tongue… than pollute the world with the innanities they pluck from their rear end. You’re one of them. “The people,” scrubmeister, have always been led around by the nose by their thinking elites. It’s only in the last few centuries, and especially in the last century, and then even only in the last few decades of it, that “the people” have had any opportunity to make up their own minds, and therein lies “liberalism”: people tend towards liberal thinking because truth itself tends towards it. Truth also tends towards racialism, however, and that’s where influence of the elite (media, politics etc) gets in the way of straight thinking. Too many people don’t allow themselves to think racially because they’re taught it’s wrong. This, all by itself (well, okay, in combination with immigration, but immigrants have long been a fact), results in race-replacement. If you can’t think about race you can’t resist racial dispossession. There doesn’t need to be any “official policy.” You can say some people want it, and I suppose a few do (some groups more than others), but not caring about race produces the same result. Since you seem to think it’s so important that race-replacement be viewed as official government policy, decided, what did you say?, some twenty years ago?, you should explain why. Is it necessary to view it as official government policy in order to resist it (remember, it happens with or without such a policy)? How does viewing it as official goverment policy make it easier to resist? Answer please. 41
Posted by Dave Johns on October 22, 2008, 07:54 AM | # ”... people tend towards liberal thinking because truth itself tends towards it.” silver, Liberalism is one of those amorphous terms. For clarity purposes, can you please provide your working definition of it? “Too many people don’t allow themselves to think racially because they’re taught it’s wrong.” That’s true. Whites in particular are not only taught it is morally wrong, but are also taught the consequences of engaging in thinking that promotes white EGI will result in social ostracization and financial ruin ... or even loss of personal freedom, i.e., incarceration. This is all the result of PC, or “modern-liberalism.” Some say the Jews brought all this to us. That my be true; however, if the Jews disappeared from the face of the earth today, the leftist ideologies they introduced will live on. Like it or not, their ideologies have been indelibly etched into the thought patterns of Western man. Too, nonwhite- immigration is an incursion on every white nations’ carrying capacity - and by extension, an irreversible pollutant within our gene-pool. You, silver, accurately stated: Immigration + time= race-replacement. Many agree with that:- http://amren.com/ar/2003/02/index.html#cover Where do we go from here, silver? 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 22, 2008, 08:21 AM | # Replying to Silver: When Gen. Wesley Clark said the reason Belgrade was so savagely bombed was Serbs wanted to live in a monoethnic nation but that was no longer to be permitted, because from now on multiethnic nations were going to be required (funny he didn’t say that was going to be required of Israel), did that sound like “people in government not caring” which way nations were arranged demographically, or did it sound like people in government not only caring, but caring very much, caring hysterically in fact, caring so much, and demanding so specifically the one arrangement that thwarts a nation’s racial/ethnocultural preservation, that the savagery of the bombing made even left-wingers who applauded use of force against Serbia say publicly that Gen. Clark must be some sort of sadistic psycho? Which of those does that sound like? If people in government “didn’t care” they’d have no objection to Serbs living in a Serb nation if Serbs wanted, or to ... here I was going to cite some other group as a counter-example to Serbs wanting to live in a Serb nation, some group that preferred living as a scattered, disorganized, deferential, submissive, non-self-asserting minority in a multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial nation — but there is no such group, for the simple reason that any that might exist or might ever have existed wouldn’t remain in existence long: the ones that are in existence are the ones that didn’t want to live that way. So I’ll have to put, “If people in government ‘didn’t care’ they’d have no objection to Serbs living in a Serb nation if Serbs wanted, or to the people the Jews imagine in their extremely bizarre imaginations (people who don’t exist and never did, but the diaspora Jews are going to try to force them into existence, the diaspora Jews are going to try to will them into existence, because otherwise diaspora Jews are going to “feel excluded”) living as scattered disorganized atomized submissive identityless minorities likely afraid of their own shadows, submerged an ocean of racial/ethnocultural alienness, hostility, and forced race-mixing and erasure of all ethnocultural particularity. If this isn’t planned at some level why does the Jewish press (which means the U.S. press, which is one-hundred percent in the hands of the Jews) have a strict policy of never reporting Negro on white violence, while it blows the opposite up out of all proportion in an obvious attempt to whip up hostility against Euros? You said, Silver, “answer please,” to make sure I answered your question — well, please answer me this, then: can you account for the Jewish policy of doing exactly that, never reporting Negro on white crime, or even Negro on Negro crime, even the most heinous of it, but always reporting the vastly rarer white on Negro crime and not just reporing it but dwelling on it ad nauseam, ad infinitum? Can you, Silver, or can J our Israeli friend who used to live in the States, or can White Jewish and Proud, or can Jewish Race Realist, the two Jews who freqent Jobling’s site — can any of you explain why the Jews do that? If this isn’t all planned at some level why is criticism of it outlawed? If it’s merely a policy like any other why is it made sacrosanct and above criticism? In Canada, as JWH pointed out, even criticism of the outlawing of criticism is outlawed! You go to jail in Canada if you criticize the fact that criticism of it is outlawed! If this isn’t planned at some level, how do you explain that? You don’t see at some level the overlords have in their mind’s eye a very explicit picture of a race-mixed world they want made reality, and they’ll tolerate nothing getting in the way of that? 43
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 22, 2008, 09:29 AM | #
“Not caring” would manifest as indifference regarding whether races mixed or retained their identities, but “indifference” isn’t what we’re seeing. We’re seeing an extremely aggressive position taken by government, at each and every turn literally without exception, in favor of the eradication of racial identity of Euros. 44
Posted by Armor on October 22, 2008, 10:13 AM | #
On the contrary, Jews were not needed in order to invent crazy ideologies. But anti-European ideologies would cease to be dominant if the Jews disappeared from the western media and governments. 45
Posted by Dave Johns on October 22, 2008, 12:03 PM | # “On the contrary, Jews were not needed in order to invent crazy ideologies.” Maybe so, but the fact is: Jews DID introduce lethally toxic ideologies into the Eurosphere. “But anti-European ideologies would cease to be dominant if the Jews disappeared from the western media and governments.” Jews are not disappearing; they are exerting greater and greater control of the media and governments by the day. “There is a huge gap between Europeans and their media/governments.” No there isn’t. The Europeans love their media. The high ratings prove it. “Most Europeans resent the policy of race-replacement, but they are not in control of the media and of the political process.” Most Europeans are either oblivious to the race-replacement situation, or they are indifferent to it. Most of us that are resisting it are being beat into submission.
Riiiiiiight. “We should call for an end to the dominant position of Jews in the media.” Okay. That sounds easy enough! Let’s get right on it!!! Sorry, Armor. I don’t mean to be so sarcastic, but mearly stating what we should do about race-replacement is easy. Acually doing something about it is another story ... especially when we are fighting from a position of extreme unpopularity. 46
Posted by Armor on October 22, 2008, 12:36 PM | #
Then, don’t be! 47
Posted by Dave Johns on October 22, 2008, 04:09 PM | # “My main point was that Jewish influence in the media is a crucial part of the problem, and it seems that you do not particularly disagree on that.”—Armor I do agree with you my friend. In fact, I beleive control of the media is the most powerful weapon the Jewish supremacists wield over us. I specify “Jewish supremacists” because I don’t want paint all Jews with the same broad brush of guilt. No way do I, for example, blame the friendly Lefkowitz family that owns and operates the bakery at the local strip-mall etc. 48
Posted by Al Ross on October 22, 2008, 04:56 PM | # “OK, that sounds easy enough”. For a people with their own interests at heart, it wouldnt be difficult to give the Jews the boot from media ownership. When Rupert Murdoch wished to acquire US TV stations he was forced by the rules of the day to relinquish his Australian citizenship and become a US citizen, so a new law must be passed to make all US, Canada EU, Australia etc media owners adhere to citizenship/ownership rules with one crucial proviso, viz., as Jews are all de facto citizens of Israel under the Law (not the policy) of Return they would naturally be barred from any media ownership position in White nations. 49
Posted by silver on October 23, 2008, 02:50 AM | #
Classical liberalism. Rationality, civic equality, individual rights, civil liberties, market economy, constitutional government, that sort of thing. “Americanism” could be another word for it. Obviously that’s open to subversion and it subverted it has been, but in the absence of those subversive elements I have faith that rationality could correct for modern “po-mo” excesses. Since rationality should lead to racialism, most of the excesses wouldn’t crop up in the first place, since the only reason at least half of “po-mo” exists is an intellectual way to sneak out of acknowledging human genetic inequality; you’d still have the terminal whiners about intraracial “inequality” but that would pale compared to the pretzels these loons twist themselves into trying explain away interracial.
What it obviously means is that if you want to live in a monoethnic state (which is not what the Serbs were fighting for in that war, btw: there are huge numbers of non-Serbs besides Albanians in Serbia), you won’t be able to simply decide so and then go about militarily cleansing your country of hundreds of thousands of people who’ve been living in your territory for hundreds of years.* The “not caring” refers to the genetic changes that place because of breeding among those peoples.
Get it straight: it’s a question of not dwelling on rather than not reporting negro (and spanic) crime and dwelling on and exaggerating white crime. Why? Well, firstly, not because of any official government policy! Negroes are said to be oppressed and their anger justified, so it’s not unexpected that they’ll occasionally commit racially motivated crimes. Dwelling on those crimes risks rousing white racial feelings, which would only feed further negro resentment, so negro crime is hushed up. Whites are supposed to be the big racists, and white racial organizations do exist (KKK, neos etc), so news of white racially motivated crime is seen as significant, something which needs to be rooted out and destroyed so that negroes (and others) can finally rise up out of the poverty racism is keeping them mired in. All complete bullshit, of course, but that’s the rationale modern liberals buy into, for various reasons, disinformation and distaste of the alternative the two most prominent. Jews do it because they’re just plain scared of and, to a lesser degree, I believe, hateful of whites, and also because many of them are commies. Commies, because, well, who knows with these creatures, anything which can be used against capitalism is fair game for them; for now, that’s negroes/racism, which is perfect because there’s an endless supply of it. 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 25, 2008, 03:01 PM | # Replying to Silver from the other day:
That’s right, it should. I prefer to avoid the term “racialism” in favor of “acknowledgement of the truth about the world” or its equivalent. You shouldn’t acknowledge certain truths about the world in a way that’s hurtful to anyone and neither should the Jews force Euros into a position where they have no choice BUT to acknowledge certain things in a way that hurts some others, out of racial self-defense since the Jews are playing dumb, pretending not to know these things which they know perfectly, and in order to attack Euros on an ethnic basis push Euros to where they have no choice but to say, “We don’t want to integrate with Negroes or intermarry with them: look what they’re like, how they act, what they look like.” Everyone, including the Jews, knows Negroes are not the most desirable race to live among or marry. Everyone but the Jews shuts up about it and “understands” without it needing to be said out loud, and quietly respects conventions that have grown up around the fact. But then the Jews come along and, by pushing, pushing, pushing unreasonably, while pretending not to be aware of certain characteristics of certain races, force Euros to say things out loud about certain races which the Jews simply shouldn’t force them to do. If feelings get hurt it’s the Jews’ fault. Everyone else was being discreet. The Jews do these shocking, destructive things they do because they see themselves as fighting a war against the goys from birth and are unfrickingbelievably obnoxious. The Jews acknowledge these racial truths, all of them, privately among themselves: the same Jewish mothers and fathers who pretend before the goys that race doesn’t exist, and exclaim how so many of the world’s ills would be solved if only Euros would stop being so racist and start marrying Negroes, make it very clear when their daughters go away to college that they don’t want them bringing home any Negro boyfriends. The elaborate anti-racism spouted by Jews is strictly for export only, entirely for goyische consumption.
I don’t get what you mean: isn’t that how I interpreted it before? Here’s what you originally wrote:
Again, if government “didn’t care about race” (or, by your terminology, “didn’t care about the genetic changes that take place because of breeding among those peoples”) they’d view with indifference the question of whether or not whites preserved themselves racially. But they’re not indifferent: they favor the racial destruction of whites in all their official policies without exception.
I don’t see it as important apart from clarifying that it’s not happening by itself like some force of nature, but is being imposed by men deliberately. Whatever badness is being imposed by men, this included, can be remedied by getting the men imposing it to stop. That’s my point in saying it’s being done deliberately. Whatever badness isn’t being imposed by men, such as earthquakes or sunshine causing skin cancer, can’t be remedied by getting men to stop imposing it, since no men are. Forced race-replacement isn’t in that second category.
That’s only once the conditions for it have been put in place by men’s conscious decisions. If it happens entirely without official policy and “not unlike the way the world turns,” how has Japan avoided it?
I don’t see it as government policy but Jewish media-owner policy. Second, it’s not true that it’s a quesion of “not dwelling on it” rather than “not reporting it.” The Jews flatly refuse to report it. Why do I say “the Jews”? What do “the Jews” have to do with it? They own all the media. Whatever they don’t own reports it.
I agree Jewish media owners do it for the reasons you cite: fear and hatred of Euros. I go further and combine the communism, which you cite as another reason they do it, with the first reason (fear and hatred of Euros) instead of viewing it as separate, because I see the Jewish tribal love-affair with communism itself as springing from fear and hatred of Euros. No one, not even Jews, is crazy enough to love communism without some ulterior motive. For Jews that ulterior motive that makes them seem to love commuism is Euro-hatred: communism really does a good job destroying Euros. Negroes are another weapon in the Jewish armamentarium aimed at destroying Euros: the Jewish tribal love-affair with the Negroes is analagous in this respect to their tribal love-affaiir with communism — it’s all aimed at overcoming their tribal enemy, Euros. 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 25, 2008, 05:14 PM | # Here‘s an example: has anyone heard of this 25-year-old white woman shot in the head by the Negroes as she rode by on her bicycle, and left lying dead in the street for hours by the Negroes? No, because the Jews refuse to report it. If the races had been reversed would the Jews have reported it? Reported it???? Are you kidding, they’d have written a whole new chapter on it for the Hebrew Bible and we’d be re-living it over and over 24/7/365 for the next ten thousand years. But Negro-on-white? Forget it, you’re dreaming, the Jews aren’t gonna report that and it’s not, Ian Jobling, because there are “anti-Semites” out there. Jobling thinks the Jews are waiting till the anti-Semites have all been cleaned out of everywhere before they start reporting Negro-on-white crime or hanging around his blog. That’s not it, Ian. It’s JN. They see themselves as fighting a war to the death against Euros. They don’t give one damn about “anti-Semites.” They use that as a pretext. The only reason anyone knows this crime happened is the internet. If we depended on the Jews for reporting on what was going on we’d know exactly zip about anything that wasn’t a hundred percent anti-white a hundred percent of the time. 52
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2008, 09:20 PM | # Kalb’s got a brief FAQ (“Frequently Asked Questions”) on the subjects his new book on liberalism deals with. What follows is roughly the first third of the FAQ. General 1. What do you mean, “tyranny of liberalism “? The suppression of normal thought, discussion, and human relations in the name of a general idea that doesn’t fit human life and is enforced by an increasingly pervasive, centralized, and irresponsible system of social governance. 2. What general idea ? Equal freedom as a final standard. 3. What’s wrong with equal freedom ? Freedom and equality are good in many connections, but they don’t make sense as standards that trump everything else. 4. Explain . As final standards for a legal order, freedom and equality are self-contradictory. They require a ruling class that: a) makes choices among goods that are arbitrary by its own standards, since “equal freedom” isn’t very informative, and then forces those choices on everyone, and In short, state-enforced equal freedom means bureaucratic autocracy, which is radically inconsistent with either freedom or equality. For example: suppose I want to do things that are consensual but give me and others an advantage over third parties. For example, I might want to earn lots of money and keep it or give it to whoever I want, or refuse to do business with whoever I don’t want to do business with. If you control the government and tell me I can’t do those things, because my actions oppress other people, how is that freedom? How is it equality for you to tell me what to do? Or suppose that: a) I want to be free to choose a reliable job that pays a living wage, get married in a setting that supports stable functional families, and raise children in an environment they find both adventurous and safe. I think law and public policy should support my version of freedom and you think they should support your version. Who wins? Can your freedom and my freedom co-exist? 5. But hasn’t liberalism done a lot of good ? Sure. So have beer, war, and taking the day off. You just can’t turn those things into general principles to live by. Similarly, freedom and equality are often good and useful. You just can’t make them the basis of a theory of government. So what’s the point ? 6. But you’re basically just arguing that freedom and equality can’t be perfect, there are always conflicts, and things can’t be pushed too far. Nobody denies that . No. I’m arguing that freedom and equality can’t determine law or policy without help. Something more is needed, a substantive theory of what life is about, that tells you what freedoms and equalities should be come first. Every society establishes some such theory. Liberal society establishes liberal views on that sort of issue, while Catholic society establishes Catholic views. The claim there is something specially inclusive or tolerant about liberal society is silly, at least if “inclusive” and “tolerant” are taken in any normal sense. Liberalism forces liberalism on everyone. What’s inclusive or tolerant about that? 7. So you’re saying there’s a liberal way of life with liberal values and habits that liberal institutions promote. That’s supposed to prove liberalism is tyrannical. Big deal. All regimes promote particular values and ways of life . True. But liberalism denies it does so. That’s what words like “freedom,” “equality,” “tolerance,” and “inclusiveness” mean. The result is that liberalism defeats its stated purpose. Supposedly, liberalism lets everyone follow his bliss as he sees it. But that obviously can’t be so, because liberalism suppresses some habits and attitudes and promotes others. It promotes a particular social setting and not every social setting is equally conducive to every kind of bliss. If your bliss is the absolute global free market and my bliss is worker security they’re going to conflict. Ditto if yours is untrammelled lifestyle choice and mine is lifestyle stability and functionality. 8. So liberalism misrepresents what it’s about from some points of view. That may be so, but other views do that too. So what? What’s the real objection to what liberalism is, as opposed to how it presents itself ? At bottom, liberalism as it now exists is defined by the following views: a) means/ends reasoning is the only rationality, From those views it follows that the whole world should be turned into a sort of machine for maximizing satisfactions equally. A basic problem with that view is that maximum equal preference satisfaction can’t be the highest human good, because it’s against human nature to take it as such. We want what we want, but not simply because we want it. We want it because we understand it as good quite apart from our actual desires, and so as worth wanting. We take that view because we are rational beings, and rationality involves not just deliberation as to means and ends but the habit of seeing ourselves as acting according to general principles that are not based simply on what we want. Liberalism is exacting, and comprehensively reorders social life. It does so to promote something that cannot possibly be viewed as our good at the expense of the goods by which we have always lived. That is tyrannical. [end of FAQ excerpt] To read the rest (which is, like everything Kalb writes, “must reading”) click on the link in this comment’s opening. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 31, 2009, 08:31 PM | # A very informative review of Kalb’s book, “The Tyranny of Liberalism”: http://www.extremepolitics.org/2009/01/19/review-of-james-kalbs-book-the-tyranny-of-liberalism/ 54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 18, 2009, 10:55 PM | # Kalb offers thumbnail sketches of liberalism,
and thumbnail sketches of the following kinds of conservatism: The Simply Conservative Conservative : The Conservative Liberals : The Radical Conservatives : http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2775 (I didn’t especially like Kalb’s sketch of “The Ethnic Nationalist” but I’m not sure I completely understood it, so I’m not going to comment on it and risk making a misinterpretation. 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 18, 2009, 11:02 PM | # “Kalb offers thumbnail sketches of liberalism,” (—my comment above) Make that “offers a thumbnail sketch” (singular). Next entry: Hollywood In Danger of Making Historically Unprecedented Returns From Pro-Euroman Movies Previous entry: Ancient Greek Poetry and Music |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Guess I should’ve read the thread first.
Posted by Søren Renner on March 10, 2007, 10:29 AM | #
How right Guessedworker was in admitting Mr. Frolic to the posting elite is now clear: very right.